At 1:09 PM +1100 on 6/24/99, spierings wrote:
>I thought this group was for defining a standard for xTalk so all
>compilers could compile a script if it conformed to the standard. This
>seems a really futile exercise if this discussion is not made a formal
>language specification.
>
>Hmmm... so what is this list for exactly again?
>
>If we want to standardize xTalk why don't we do it properly. Does anybody
>have experience in writing language specifications?
I've read parts of one... and they are scarry.
I'll probably be doing a simi-formal one as part of Interpreter; Uli will
no doubt demand it as part of the "documentation."
